A classical composer just brought down a Chinese state-run YouTube channel over copyright infringement; Fast Company, June 17, 2024

CHRIS STOKEL-WALKER, Fast Company ; A classical composer just brought down a Chinese state-run YouTube channel over copyright infringement

"Despite the fact that CCTV-6’s YouTube channel, which hosted 22,000 videos and had 2.5 million followers, had received more than the three copyright strikes that would ordinarily result in a termination (or permanent ban of the account), YouTube didn’t take action beyond confirming to Muzzey that the infringing content wouldn’t be reinstated. “YouTube is immunizing CCTV-6 against my claims, even though I have an email directly from them saying, ‘We know this is false. We’re doing it to buy some time,’” he claims. (YouTube declined to comment for this story.)

Not terminating CCTV-6’s channel appeared to be in violation of YouTube’s own rules—and crucially allowed the TV network to continue to upload new content. That was the status quo, until Muzzey asked his litigation counsel to send a legal notice to YouTube pointing out the breaches of copyright law. Two days later, after the litigation counsel presented the same evidence Muzzey did, YouTube took the channel down entirely."

‘The Hunt for Gollum’ Was Just Announced. It Was on YouTube in 2009.; The New York Times, May 22, 2024

Stefano Montali, The New York Times ; ‘The Hunt for Gollum’ Was Just Announced. It Was on YouTube in 2009.

"Early on, he had reached an agreement with the Tolkien estate ensuring that his project would respect its intellectual property, and that it would be freely available and noncommercial. “We were lucky that they looked kindly on it as something that was for the fan community,” Bouchard said.

But YouTube denied the appeal. So, like eagles over Mordor, the Ringers, as the fans are known, swooped in. They wrote articles and posted heated comments on Reddit and other sites, calling the removal “deplorable” and “despicable.” Bouchard noted his disappointment on X.

Bouchard quickly received a follow-up email from YouTube: The movie had been reinstated. In an email, Warner Bros. said it had no official comment. YouTube did not reply to requests for comment."

YouTube to offer option to flag AI-generated songs that mimic artists’ voices; The Guardian, November 14, 2023

 Dan Milmo , The Guardian; YouTube to offer option to flag AI-generated songs that mimic artists’ voices

"Record companies can request the removal of songs that use artificial intelligence-generated versions of artists’ voices under new guidelines issued by YouTube.

The video platform is introducing a tool that will allow music labels and distributors to flag content that mimics an artist’s “unique singing or rapping voice”.

Fake AI-generated music has been one of the side-effects of leaps forward this year in generative AI – the term for technology that can produce highly convincing text, images and voice from human prompts.

One of the most high-profile examples is Heart on My Sleeve, a song featuring AI-made vocals purporting to be Drake and the Weeknd. It was pulled from streaming services after Universal Music Group, the record company for both artists, criticised the song for “infringing content created with generative AI”. However, the song can still be accessed by listeners on YouTube."

How to Submit a Removal Request on YouTube Due to Copyright; MakeUseOf, October 9, 2023

SAM WOLFE, MakeUseOf; How to Submit a Removal Request on YouTube Due to Copyright

"Ultimately, YouTube wants to protect creators who put in time and hard work to produce original content. If you find that someone is stealing your content or YouTube has found matches of your videos, don’t hesitate to turn in a removal request."

Sony copyright claims for Bewitched spell trouble for group that preserves old TV [Updated]; Are Technica, September 5, 2023

 JON BRODKIN , Ars Technica; Sony copyright claims for Bewitched spell trouble for group that preserves old TV [Updated]

"[Update at 6:56 pm ET: It looks like Rick Klein will be able to keep the YouTube channel running. Sony's copyright office emailed Klein after this article was published, saying it would "inform MarkScan to request retractions for the notices issued in response to the 27 full-length episode postings of Bewitched" in exchange for "assurances from you that you or the Fuzzy Memories TV Channel will not post or re-post any infringing versions from Bewitched or other content owned or distributed by SPE [Sony Pictures Entertainment] companies."

Sony said it's taking that step because "this is the first time we have become aware of your YouTube Channel posting unauthorized versions of SPE-distributed content, and the unique circumstances therein." However, Sony told Klein that his channel must remove "similarly infringing posts for other SPE-distributed shows," pointing out that he had posted episodes from other Sony shows.]

Original story: A nonprofit that preserves classic television videos may have its YouTube channel shut down tomorrow over copyright claims for Bewitched episodes that originally aired in the 1960s.

The Museum of Classic Chicago Television has about 5,000 videos, including many decades-old commercials and news shows, posted on its YouTube channel and its own Fuzzy Memories website. President and chief curator Rick Klein's "quest to save vintage Chicago TV shows and commercials" was featured in a WBEZ storytwo years ago.

But after 16 years of Klein and his group, who rely on donors and volunteers, archiving old videos, the TV museum's YouTube channel on August 30 received six copyright strikes for posting 27 Bewitched episodes owned by Sony Pictures Television. Copyright complaints were sent by MarkScan, a "digital asset protection" firm that content owners hire to enforce copyrights. MarkScan has been sending copyright complaints on Sony's behalf since at least 2014.

Klein told Ars today that he's not opposed to the Bewitched videos' deletion and that he has no intention of reposting them. But over the past few days he has been trying to reach anyone at MarkScan or Sony who can reverse the copyright strikes so he can continue the Museum of Classic Chicago Television's YouTube channel."

Google and YouTube are trying to have it both ways with AI and copyright; The Verge, August 22, 2023

 Nilay Patel,, The Verge; Google and YouTube are trying to have it both ways with AI and copyright

"There’s only one name that springs to mind when you think of the cutting edge in copyright law online: Frank Sinatra. 

There’s nothing more important than making sure his estate — and his label, Universal Music Group — gets paid when people do AI versions of Ol’ Blue Eyes singing “Get Low” on YouTube, right? Even if that means creating an entirely new class of extralegal contractual royalties for big music labels just to protect the online dominance of your video platform while simultaneously insisting that training AI search results on books and news websites without paying anyone is permissible fair use? Right? Right?

This, broadly, is the position that Google is taking after announcing a deal with Universal Music Group yesterday “to develop an AI framework to help us work toward our common goals.” Google is signaling that it will pay off the music industry with special deals that create brand-new — and potentially devastating! — private intellectual property rights, while basically telling the rest of the web that the price of being indexed in Search is complete capitulation to allowing Google to scrape data for AI training."

YouTube and content creators clash over the platform’s automated copyright tool; Marketplace, November 4, 2022

Marketplace; YouTube and content creators clash over the platform’s automated copyright tool

"Every minute, people upload more than 500 hours of video to YouTube — cat videos, music videos, even videos of people recording their audio podcasts.

And some of those clips include content the people uploading them don’t own, like clips of music from popular songs.

YouTube, and its owner, Google, have an automated technology called Content ID that regularly scans for copyrighted material — including music — and flags it for copyright holders.

Marketplace’s Kimberly Adams spoke about this with Marketplace’s Peter Balonon-Rosen, who explained why the system has some musicians frustrated."

California police department investigates officers blaring Disney music; The Guardian, April 15, 2022

Maya Yang , The Guardian; California police department investigates officers blaring Disney music

"A California police department has launched an investigation into its own officers who were filmed blaring copyrighted Disney music in attempts to prevent residents from recording them...

The incident reflects an apparently growing trend in which police officers play copyrighted music in order to prevent videos of them from being posted on to social media platforms such as YouTube and Instagram, which can remove content that includes unauthorized content."

YouTube reveals millions of incorrect copyright claims in six months; The Verge, December 6, 2021

Mia Sato , The Verge; YouTube reveals millions of incorrect copyright claims in six months

"Over 2.2 million copyright claims hit YouTube videos before later being overturned between January and June of this year, according to a new report published by the company today. The Copyright Transparency Report is the first of its kind published by YouTube, which says it will update biannually going forward.

The 2.2 million incorrect claims represent less than 1 percent of the more than 729 million total copyright claims issued in the first half of this year, 99 percent of which originated from Content ID, YouTube’s automated enforcement tool. When users disputed these claims, the case was resolved in favor of the uploader of the video 60 percent of the time, according to the report."

YouTube reversed my bogus copyright strike after I threatened to write this; Mashable, January 28, 2020

Matt Binder, Mashable; YouTube reversed my bogus copyright strike after I threatened to write this

"“Your case is the most extreme I’ve heard about. Congratulations,” Electronic Frontier Foundation Manager of Policy and Activism, Katharine Trendacosta, said to me in a phone conversation on the issue. “This is the first time I've heard about this happening to something that didn't contain anything. And I have heard a lot of really intense stories about what's happening on YouTube.”...

“Your case is a really extreme example of a fairly common situation in which these major companies send DMCA takedown on a very broad basis,” she explained. “YouTube is far more afraid of being sued by Warner Bros. than being sued by you, so you end up with them being much more cautious and doing things like just allowing DMCA strikes on anything.”

So, what can be done? Apparently, not much."

X-Men: 'Dark Phoenix' Gets an Animated Trailer; Comicbook.com, October 7, 2018

Jamie Lovett, Comicbook.com; X-Men: 'Dark Phoenix' Gets an Animated Trailer

"In September, 20th Century Fox released the first trailer for Dark Phoenix. Now a fan has taken that trailer and recreated it using footage from X-Men: The Animated Series.

The trailer, which can be seen above, was created by YouTuber Darth Blender. It uses the audio from the Dark Phoenix trailer with visuals from X-Men: The Animated Series."

Infamous 'Dancing Baby' copyright battle settled just before YouTube tot becomes a teen; The Register, June 27, 2018

Kieren McCarthy, The Register; Infamous 'Dancing Baby' copyright battle settled just before YouTube tot becomes a teen

"In the Ninth Circuit ruling – which is the one that will now hold until another appeals court takes on the topic and/or the Supreme Court decides to revisit the issue in future – the court said that a copyright holder is obliged to consider whether the content they are planning to send a DMCA notice to is legal under the fair use doctrine.

 Which is great. Except the court also decided that the rightsholder is entitled to reach the decision of whether that is true or not entirely by themselves.

Which on one level provides a sort of equilibrium but on the other means that it is inevitable that there will be lots of future court cases as people argue all over again about what is fair use.

 In other words, this 11-year court battle has not really resolved anything and we can expect to see another one on the exact same topic soon."

THE STAR WARS VIDEO THAT BAFFLED YOUTUBE'S COPYRIGHT COPS; Wired, August 2, 2017

Jeremy Hsu, Wired; THE STAR WARS VIDEO THAT BAFFLED YOUTUBE'S COPYRIGHT COPS

"Still, the Auralnauts say they have few options to fight what they view as unfair claims on their content. Koonce suggested possible Content ID improvements that could prevent the same false claims from being repeatedly filed against the same video by different claimants. “People need to protect their IP, but don’t give them all the power," he says.

A smarter profit-sharing system would differentiate better between, say, a video of Queen performing “Bohemian Rhapsody” or the same song playing in the background of someone's wedding video. “What is needed is a more nuanced approach to how stuff gets monetized,” says Robert Lyons, a former digital media executive who is now a visiting lecturer at Northeastern University in Boston.

In any case, Lyons suggests that the Auralnauts video has a very good chance of being protected under fair use legal doctrine—the legal concept that allows for music and video parodies, among other exceptions to copyright infringement. “I think that a mere five seconds of the title’s music in a work that clearly is transformative and [that] poses no threat to the commercial potential of the original work would have a very strong fair use defense,” Lyons says."

Why musicians are so angry at the world’s most popular music streaming service; Washington Post, July 14, 2017

Todd C. Frankel, Washington Post; Why musicians are so angry at the world’s most popular music streaming service

"With the money from CDs and digital downloads disappearing, the music industry has pinned its hope for the future on online song streaming, which now accounts for the majority of the $7.7 billion U.S. music market.

But the biggest player in this future isn’t one of the names most associated with streaming — Spotify, Amazon, Pandora or Apple. It’s YouTube, the site best known for viral videos, which accounts for 25 percent of all music streamed worldwide, far more than any other site.

Now, YouTube is locked in an increasingly bitter battle with music labels over how much it pays to stream their songs — and at stake is not just the finances of the music industry but also the way that millions of people around the world have grown accustomed to listening to music: free of cost."

How Ronda Rousey Clips Reveal Facebook’s Copyright Challenge; Fortune, 1/3/17

Jeff John Roberts, Fortune; 

How Ronda Rousey Clips Reveal Facebook’s Copyright Challenge:

"The copyright conundrum arose in early 2015 after Facebook (FB, +1.52%) faced a barrage of criticism over the phenomenon of "free-booting" in which people make copies of clips they see on YouTube (GOOG, +1.86%) and elsewhere, and then upload them as their own to Facebook, where the videos can be seen thousands or millions of times.

In response to the criticism—including an essay called "Theft, Lies, and Facebook Video"—the company in 2015 said it took the intellectual property issues seriously, and that it was expanding tools to help copyright owners protect their content.

Based on the latest proliferation of Rousey clips, though, it's hard to see how Facebook has made much progress. Unlike similar clips that appear on YouTube, the Facebook fight videos don't come with advertising, which means the copyright owner is not making any money from them. (YouTube has long had a system called Content ID that flags infringing clips and either remove them or place ads one them)."

YouTuber Faces $300,000 Fine Over Donald Trump Parody; Digital Music News, 11/14/16

Paul Resnikoff, Digital Music News; YouTuber Faces $300,000 Fine Over Donald Trump Parody:

[Kip Currier: Interesting fact pattern but misleading clickbait headline and incomplete/inaccurate statements in some areas regarding the potential damages, i.e. the maximum amount for an instance of willful copyright infringement is $150,000. But the range of that damages continuum is $750 - $150,000. Under the U.S. Copyright Act, § 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits sets out under the Statutory Damages provision that: "(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200."]

[Paul Resnikoff writes here that:]"Perhaps more importantly, the cost for infringing on copyright is $150,000 per work. At two license violations, that comes to $300,000. Atkins may face that penalty if a judge rules against him. [In that last sentence, "...may face that penalty...", is an important nuance.]

The teardown and lawsuit is raising fresh questions about whether parody is indeed protected by copyright law. Or, whether substantial uses of copyrighted material constitute grounds for a complete rip-down. The ‘Clockwork Trump’ YouTube clip employs plenty of snippets from A Clockwork Orange, though it also borrows heavily from Carlos’ version of William Tell Overture.

Atkin is obviously arguing that this isn’t infringement, though his parody makes no mention of the music itself.

Update: 5:30 am PT: Looks like another version of the Donald Trump video is back up, though we’re not sure if this is the original upload. We’re still determining if this is because the counter-notification was indeed granted.

The teardown comes at a tense moment between YouTube and the music industry. Outspoken critics like manager Irving Azoff have blasted YouTube for failing to compensate artists properly, while YouTube says its takedown system is effective. Now, it appears that copyright owners are taking matters into their own hands."

Music World Bands Together Against YouTube, Seeking Change to Law; New York Times, 5/31/16

Ben Sisario, New York Times; Music World Bands Together Against YouTube, Seeking Change to Law:

"The fight over the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has touched a nerve. The music industry is bracing for what may be a high-wattage lobbying battle reminiscent of the one over the Stop Online Piracy Act, a bill that was abandoned in 2012 after opposition from technology activists and Internet giants like Google and Wikipedia.

The copyright law gives “safe harbor” to Internet service providers that host third-party material. While music groups criticize the law, some legal scholars and policy specialists say any change to it would need to be considered carefully, particularly to preserve protections like fair use.

“Anything that rewrites the D.M.C.A. isn’t just going to affect YouTube,” said James Grimmelmann, a law professor at the University of Maryland. “It is going to affect blogs. It is going to affect fan sites. It is going to affect places for game creators and documentarians and all kinds of others.”

In December, the United States Copyright Office asked for comments about D.M.C.A. as part of a review of the law, and filings by record companies show how laborious copyright policing can be."

YouTube stars U-turn on trademarks after online fury; BBC News, 2/2/16

Chris Baraniuk, BBC News; YouTube stars U-turn on trademarks after online fury:

"One YouTuber who had expressed disappointment over the trademark applications was Jon, from Many a True Nerd.

"I'm delighted, but not hugely surprised," he told the BBC after hearing about the U-turn.

"Given the huge subscriber number falls they've seen, sometimes over 10,000 lost subscriber per hour, the risk to their business was too great to ignore."

Jon added, though, that he felt The Fine Brothers would struggle to regain trust among those alienated by the episode.

"I think this movement and its consequences represent that YouTube as a community is quite determined to stay a free and open platform, and that makes me optimistic for the future," he said."

When a Public Family Is Publicly Attacked; New York Times, 2/5/16

KJ Dell'Antonia, New York Times; When a Public Family Is Publicly Attacked:

"While Ms. Howerton and her supporters report Twitter accounts for abuse, she is also asking YouTube to take down the video commentary that makes use of her video and other family images. She has filed a privacy complaint, which YouTube rejected, and is waiting for it to respond to her new complaint, alleging copyright violation. Neil Richards, a law professor at Washington University and author of “Intellectual Privacy: Rethinking Civil Liberties in the Digital Age,” said he thinks Ms. Howerton’s belief that she can regain control of the footage may be overly optimistic.

“The use of home video and family images for political debate is something that has real consequences,” he said. “She has made her life choices, her experiences, her children’ experiences, a matter for public debate. When people do this they do expose themselves to criticism and attacks and some of them are quite unpleasant.”

Eric Goldman, a professor of law and director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University School of Law, agreed that because Ms. Howerton herself used family video as part of a political discussion, she may have little legal recourse when that video is used as part of a larger video engaged in social commentary on the same topic. In many situations, videos or pictures posted online can become “fair game” for critics to use in online attacks against the poster’s position or for other undesirable political or social statements, Mr. Goldman said in an email."

Facebook's video plan? Grow like hell, deal with copyright later; Forbes, 7/10/15

Jeff John Roberts, Forbes; Facebook's video plan? Grow like hell, deal with copyright later:

"The challenge of chasing down copyright infringers has led content owners, in general, to claim the safe harbor rules are too lax, and that platforms like YouTube should do more to take down unauthorized videos. Studios have filed a spate of lawsuits to argue that more websites should be liable under a “red flag” provision in the copyright law, which can strip a site’s legal immunity in the event they obviously should have known about the infringement, or if they are directly making money from it.

But so far those lawsuits, including a long-running one against YouTube, have not really changed websites’ responsibilities when it comes to copyright, according to Lothar Determann, a copyright lawyer with Baker & McKenzie in San Francisco. He added more broadly that the law’s larger goal of protecting tech platforms still applies, and courts will not order websites to conduct copyright investigations.

The freebooter issue for Facebook, then, appears to be less of a legal problem than a moral one. Video owners may come to blame Facebook – safe harbors notwithstanding – for using their content to get rich while flouting their copyright concerns. Such claims, whether fair or not, have dogged Google and YouTube for years, and led to legal and political headaches."